Judge blocks Idaho's new immigration law hours after it went into effect

BOISE — Hours after a new law creating state-level immigration crimes went into effect, the ACLU of Idaho and other groups who support immigrants filed a lawsuit challenging it. U.S. District of Idaho Judge Amanda Brailsford later that same day agreed to temporarily block the law. 

House Bill 83 creates new crimes for “illegal entry” and “illegal reentry” into the state, and allows local law enforcement to pursue charges if someone is detained, investigated or suspected to have committed a separate crime. 

“These crimes are unlike any other in the state of Idaho, and they are clearly in violation of the Constitution,” ACLU of Idaho Legal Director Paul Carlos Southwick said at a press conference Thursday.

Gov. Brad Little signed the bill Thursday; the bill is set to immediately go into effect upon passage.

“House Bill 83 is consistent with my executive order earlier this year to crack down on illegal immigration and make good on President Trump’s promise to protect our country,” Little said in an emailed statement. “I am proud to work closely with my legislative partners to support President Trump’s efforts to ensure the immigration laws on the books are enforced and to deport illegal immigrants who pose the greatest danger to our citizens.”

Bill sponsors Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, and Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, argued the bill would help Idaho address issues with immigration that the federal government has failed to fix.

Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho, representing the Idaho Organization of Resource Councils, the Alliance of Idaho and five anonymous undocumented people who live or work in Idaho, filed a lawsuit Thursday asking a federal judge to halt HB 83's implementation.

Brailsford in her order on the ACLU's request for a temporary restraining order — meaning the law could not be enforced until at least there was a hearing on putting in longer-term injunction — that the plaintiffs "clearly show immediate and irreparable injury." She notes that Iowa, Oklahoma and Texas have all enacted similar legislation, and courts in those states have all wondered whether federal law preempts the state's in the realm of immigration. 

The block is in effect for 14 days. 

The lawsuit argues that the new law over-steps into what should be solely under federal authority in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, that it violates the Commerce Clause by regulating people’s entry into Idaho and movement across state and national borders, and that it is overly vague.

The lawsuit and ACLU representatives underscored that the bill did not require someone be convicted of a separate crime to be charged with these new state crimes but may only be suspected of one.

“Law enforcement have new incentives to stop brown people," said Ruby Mendez-Mota, ACLU of Idaho campaign strategist.

Mendez-Mota also said anyone who appears to be Latino or who doesn't speak English could also be targets under the bill. 

The bill authorizes local law enforcement to share information and cooperate with federal agencies on immigration, and prevents local jurisdictions from prohibiting cooperation, such as with policies of some sanctuary cities. The bill would also require law enforcement to determine if someone is a “foreign national” upon arresting anyone for a criminal offense, and if they are, the law enforcement agency would be required to notify the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

HB 83 also creates a new crime of “trafficking a dangerous alien,” which would be knowingly and willfully transporting an undocumented person who had been convicted of a dangerous crime — defined in the bill as any felony offense for which an extended term of imprisonment may be imposed or any offense requiring sex offender registration.

Under the bill, there would also be a sentencing enhancement, adding a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least five years for adults convicted of a dangerous crime who had previously been deported.

The bill was based on a similar bill in Texas that has been blocked from going into effect over similar constitutional concerns as the ACLU lawsuit. After passing the House, HB 83 was amended in the Senate to avoid some of the more “challenging provisions” of Texas’ law, Lakey said previously.